New Orleans, LA
No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT and allow Time Warner and others to enjoy the AWESOME CAPITALISM part of America where they write the rules, make billions, raise prices, and provide service that is average at best.
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT amen brother
| |said by Van:Sarcasm noted, however, government is involved to a degree, but it is conspiring with the conglomerates and not the people.
and allow Time Warner and others to enjoy the AWESOME CAPITALISM part of America where they write the rules, make billions, raise prices, and provide service that is average at best.
| |skeechanAi OtsukaholicPremium
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT Many communities have tried, and incumbents sue to stop it. And if that fails they bribe the state legislature to outlaw muni broadband outright.
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT So pool money together and start a cooperative.
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT
said by silbaco:Building a network takes a lot more money than people are going to have on hand to throw into a pool.
So pool money together and start a cooperative.
However, starting a nonprofit organization that would seek loans to build it and then operate it on a nonprofit basis could work. They'd just need to charge enough to repay the loans, cover operating costs, and maintain a fund for needed repairs and upgrades. The only issue is that you can't start out too small, since you have to spread your costs over a large enough area to get enough subs so that you can charge them a competitive price.
I think the best place to try something like this would be in an area where you have lots of highly-paid tech-literate residents and crappy broadband service. Huntsville, Alabama comes to mind, although I don't know how good their broadband options are up there. For telco, they have AT&T, and, for cable, I believe they have Comcast and maybe some overbuild from Knology.
| || Personally, I would like to see a nationwide rollout of 1 fiber network to every business and consumer that can be used by anyone to reach anyone. If I am in St. Louis and feel Comcast has the best offer and service, then I can use them over that. If I think AT&T is that company, I should be able to choose them.|
How we accomplish this whether it be community based, state based or nationally based I dont care. I just believe that the people of the US should own it and not a corporation.
To begin that, I think all ISP's should be split to have an ISP side and a network side so they dont control both the network and the content.
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT How exactly are you going to pay for this nation wide fiber rollout?
How much will it cost each user?
suppose a home, business owner decides the cost is more than it is worth to them... can they opt out? suppose it's more than they CAN pay? would you seize their property?
How are you going to compensate existing providers for your anti-competitive destruction of their business by making their physical plants worthless/non-viable. (even existing fiber rollouts that don't meet your specs)
Suppose your take rate is not high enough due to cost, or gov't restrictions on usage (Gov't owned network COULD NOT be used for terrorism, criminal, or treaty violations such as IP theft, for example) Who would pay the full cost?
It obviously can't be built overnight, so who gets served first?
Suppose by the time it is built, a private provider comes up with a better, cheaper solution (wireless quantum sub-nanosecond bonding) which can be rapidly rolled out using entirely private funds at a lower price point, will your Gov't net block them to "protect" the unpaid taxpayer investment?
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT negative.., Government should use the FCC fund to do it.. lets face it the companies keep getting the money but not doing nothing to expand their networks.. their fault.. why should our tax money go to them?
that being said maybe a non profit that gets the money from the government same that their handing to the other companies... and build the network.. heck I wouldn't be surprised if google aint looking into trying to get that to subsidize their network build out
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT The FCC (USF?) funds (or a like amount) HAVE been expanding the networks, the trouble being it's a drop in the bucket compared to the real cost.
Recognize that MOST of that was dedicated to providing copper PHONE lines, the idea of making a "greater than 14.4Kbps" requirement is very recent under FCC decree.
The phone company can't help that 'WE" have been paying them to provide out of date technology.
If you NOW want to require they scrap copper and replace it all with fiber, be prepared for a HUGE frontend bill even if (in theory) maintainace costs will drop (in theory, only because when a tornado or some redneck decides it's fun to pull out 50 miles of fiber, duct, and knock down some poles, it gonna be another big bill for the rush repair)
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT We certainly could, but we haven't yet. and remember that defence money pays exist salaries for millions, and like much of the federal budget unlikely to be easily redirected/recommitted.
If you expect a 20-30% return on taxes, in only a few years, you are dreaming. even if you taxed at 100% it is unlikely faster internet alone would instantly generate $25+ billion in NEW annual revenue (NEW, being not just taken/displaced from other sectors)
This isn't a 3-5 year pay off sized project, and until proponents offer more realistic guesstimates and solutions to compensating existing providers(which may be an equal or larger amount) a publicly owned overbuild won't get much traction.
This is why USF like, 'slow and steady' trickle of funds has been the basis of federal efforts to gradually improve broadband.
Yes it is slow, inefficient, and like insufficient on it's own, it and an occasional "stimulus"-like (which actual was more effective that expected) bursts are all the federal funding you will see.
Consistent, long term (something we the people haven't been good at for awhile) tax benefits to make it in the incumbents best interest to do it themselves will make the product more expensive (any mandate with all the added requirements does this) but would be more likely to get it done quickly.
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT That $200 billion doesn't need to be taken out of one years defense budget. Over the course of a 5 year roll out $40 billion a year is a lot more manageable. And the fact of the matter is more than that is wasted on either redundant stuff that is already handled by other agencies or outright stupid shit.
The USF is a slush fund that is just one huge money sink.
Subsidies just wont cut it anymore, see pretty much every single small community build out in the past 5 years and all the opposition faced by them by the incumbents. You think subsidies are going to stop that?
Compared to all the bullshit this country spends money on, a national broadband build out should be a no-brainer. The sad fact is it is good for our infrastructure and good for the American People. Those two facts alone will guarantee corporations will never allow it to happen since it will hurt their shareholders bottom lines.
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT
said by Xioden: I very much agree.
...Compared to all the bullshit this country spends money on, a national broadband build out should be a no-brainer....
Your problem is convincing the no brainers in Washington and all the people at home that, Right now, WE ALL need to commit to an extra $2000 in debt per household over the next 5 years and the THIS is the plan WITHOUT changes and modification and studies and committees and boards and commissions and addons and extras and earmarks and...
AND that this is actually enough to complete it and it will pay for itself in X-years and Uncle Bob who works at the cableco will still have a similar job. and that this isn't just so your kids can spend the rest of their lives in the basement playing games, downloading stolen IP, hacking sites, and whacking off.
Re: No, we need to KEEP GOVERNMENT OUT Speaking of trucks and moving companies, there are similar issue with regards to beer makers becoming distributors. It makes it too easy to allow for anti-competitive behavior.
Could be worse... Be happy you don't live in Canada, where anything over 80GB of usage per month is considered excessive according to our cable provider.
real reason for LA and SATX rate hikes?? So if this is the real reason for the rate hike. LA and SATX are paying for the lost revenue and continue to lose, this would be utter BS! TWC still makes a profit even at those rates
Re: real reason for LA and SATX rate hikes?? At least in LA, TWC just got rights to the Dodgers games. And, as you know, sports rights are expensive, so guess who gets to pay for that. Plus, they probably figure that people will pay a premium to see those games, which drives prices even higher.
Re: real reason for LA and SATX rate hikes??
said by alexintexas:Google profits on it's ad revenue because they do not pay for content. They catalog and search for it.
google is a PERFECT example of it and funny thing google does not pay for any content but it does profit on all its ad revenue
Other's pay for the content.
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???
Re: real reason for LA and SATX rate hikes?? i was speaking of "youtube" sorry for the confusion
which i might add is owned by google
TWC lowered my rate too My fiberhood is not scheduled until Fall. TWC actually raised my rate a couple months ago. I called about it and before I could complain they knocked it down about $25/month and increased my bandwidth but only until end of Feb. SureWest also entered my hood so I'll be using them as leverage until Google deploys. Uverse is in my hood but not my building.
Sounds like TWC will raise rates for all and if only 20%-30% complain, they'll lower it unchallenged (and for just a period) while still net gaining from those who don't complain.
Re: TWC lowered my rate too amazing what some real competition will do
Re: TWC lowered my rate too and if the had hte same competition in the rest of the country they couldnt pull that shit
they only do it because they can get away with it
like many of said dont like it switch...
OH RIGHT YOU HAVE NO ONE TO SWITCH TO
Re: TWC lowered my rate too They could. Because they would have to. The company would be unprofitable if the applied these rates across the country.
Re: TWC lowered my rate too They no doubt are. It probably covers programming costs, but labor and other expenses probably push them over the edge.
Plenty of ISPs serve markets that are unprofitable either due to low uptake or being too small of a market. Anti-trust or not, they still do. The FCC is even trying to pay them to do so.
Re: TWC lowered my rate too They do not operate a 90%+ profit. In fact just released today their profits were much lower than expected and the stock price has taken a hit.
Re: TWC lowered my rate too On their internet not their TV service.
Sorry Just because people are threatening to switch to Google Fiber doesn't mean there is demand for Gigabit internet. You still can't find a server that will let you download at even half that. People just want faster internet. The fact that it is Gigabit is just a bonus and good for marketing.
See 9 replies to this post
lowered rates today in nyc time warner's hit in their earnings report also warranted price changes on their internet packages.
the 50mb ultimate plan dropped from 99 to 74.99
still a complete ripoff but amazing what competition does...
See 6 replies to this post
Santa Monica, CA
Not necessarily the result of Google We've seen the same actions in California, for two years, where TWC would automatically re-promo/re-rate us (downward) without asking -what I would call "Most favored nation treatment".
No Google required, and their rates have always been half that of Fios or less, regardless of whether one can get fiber.
I wouldn't worry about the incumbents.
Question is, when will Google charge less than $125 for their TV service? Will they survive, will they stick around for the long haul without special treatment? Will they offer a more reasonable price point for broadband, like Surewest and Sonic? Will they actually learn to do customer service?
See 11 replies to this post
Wait One random post to a sketchy website like Consumerist qualifies as "news"? There are no standards anymore, are there?
said by APG:And the fact that the article fails to mention that at&t's uverse is also part of the 'competition' in that area. How is uverse doing in google-fab-fabulous-fiber land? Is uverse thriving with their superfast 18Mbps internet?
One random post to a sketchy website like Consumerist qualifies as "news"? There are no standards anymore, are there?
said by IM1811:I agree that Consumer Reports is not sketchy. However, I think it's unfortunate that CR chose to sully its well-deserved good reputation by taking over consumerist.com from Gawker Media.
I don't know about Consumerist being 'sketchy'. They are owned by Consumer Reports, who have a subscription base of over 7 million readers, and have been in business since 1936.
It's a lousy website and its editors are extremely self-righteous and arrogant. Even minor, probably accidental, infractions are turned into breathless scandals. I bet I could report that I was overcharged two cents by, say, Best Buy, and consumerist would turn it into "Den of Thieves!"
Re: Consequences of increased competition... don't give me that crap..., Increased speed is needed weather or not people on here agree.. why would AT&T and Verizon tout LTE (70mbps or a little less).. heck half of the usa doesn't even have a choice of over 10.. much less even that.. 100mbps should be standard for everyone.. 1gbps is a little to much but would be helpful
Re: Consequences of increased competition... wat
said by camaro92:depends what you mean by "we".... wait until you see the anouncements that TWC starts cutting jobs. Then think that someone just got fired and can't feed their family because you wanted to pay $5 less on your bill.... The greed consumer has been putting lively hoods on the line for a long time due to their demands. The ramifications their price cuts may not be seen instantaneously, but there will be ramifications.
A big company steps on another company's toes and we for once don't get the shaft. Yaa for competition.
| |mobOn the next level..PremiumReviews:
Google Fiber has Google Fiber has lowered prices all over the area. I live in Johnson County, we are probably never going to get Google Fiber. But we have managed to get in on the deals that companies are offering to people in KCK and KCMO.
My 50/50 fiber connection is $60 a month...Not a gig each way, but considering the fact I was paying $60 a month for 25/25 a year ago, I would say I am pleased with the development.
Ich habe kein Mitleid - Me
You're a daisy if you do. - Doc Holliday
And as always, have nice day.